Literature DB >> 20150438

Multiplexed assessment of the Southwest Oncology Group-directed Intergroup Breast Cancer Trial S9313 by AQUA shows that both high and low levels of HER2 are associated with poor outcome.

Malini Harigopal1, William E Barlow, Greg Tedeschi, Peggy L Porter, I-Tien Yeh, Charles Haskell, Robert Livingston, Gabriel N Hortobagyi, George Sledge, Charles Shapiro, James N Ingle, David L Rimm, Daniel F Hayes.   

Abstract

Assessment of key breast cancer tissue biomarkers is often done using nonquantitative methods. We hypothesized that use of continuous analysis of expression with the AQUA method of automated quantitative analysis will provide prognostic information beyond that attainable with conventional methods. A tissue microarray was made from 2123 of 3122 patients accrued to SWOG 9313, in which sequential doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) was compared with combination AC and in which all patients except premenopausal estrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients received tamoxifen. Multiplexed assays of 1) HER2 and estrogen receptor and 2) progesterone receptor (PgR) and p53 were performed on the two slides using the immunofluorescence-based AQUA method of automated quantitative analysis. Both ER and PgR showed unimodal distributions and significantly predicted disease-free survival when tested as continuous variables and adjusted for node status, tumor size, treatment, and menopausal status (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). HER2, measured as a continuous variable, showed a biphasic effect on disease-free survival. Both high and low expressers of HER2 have worse outcomes (when low levels are equivalent to that seen in normal breast ducts). In patients who were uniformly treated with AC chemotherapy and tamoxifen (when indicated), both ER and PgR, assessed as continuous variables, were highly prognostic, whereas p53 expression was not. This assay method may provide a new companion diagnostic approach for targeted therapies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20150438      PMCID: PMC2843456          DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2010.090711

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9440            Impact factor:   4.307


  49 in total

1.  Quantitation of estrogen receptor in mammary carcinoma.

Authors:  W L McGuire
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  1975       Impact factor: 1.600

2.  Quantitative analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays shows that both high and normal levels of HER2 expression are associated with poor outcome.

Authors:  Robert L Camp; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Bonnie L King; David L Rimm
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications.

Authors:  T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-09-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays.

Authors:  Robert L Camp; Gina G Chung; David L Rimm
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2002-10-21       Impact factor: 53.440

5.  Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR), by ligand-binding assay compared with ER, PgR and pS2, by immuno-histochemistry in predicting response to tamoxifen in metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study.

Authors:  R M Elledge; S Green; R Pugh; D C Allred; G M Clark; J Hill; P Ravdin; S Martino; C K Osborne
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2000-03-20       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies.

Authors:  K S McCarty; L S Miller; E B Cox; J Konrath; K S McCarty
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 5.534

7.  Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Torsten O Nielsen; Forrest D Hsu; Kristin Jensen; Maggie Cheang; Gamze Karaca; Zhiyuan Hu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Chad Livasy; Dave Cowan; Lynn Dressler; Lars A Akslen; Joseph Ragaz; Allen M Gown; C Blake Gilks; Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2004-08-15       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  The value of estrogen and progesterone receptors in the treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  C K Osborne; M G Yochmowitz; W A Knight; W L McGuire
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Outcome of patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy as a function of HER2 and TOP2A status.

Authors:  Raymond Tubbs; William E Barlow; G Thomas Budd; Eric Swain; Peggy Porter; Allen Gown; I-Ten Yeh; George Sledge; Charles Shapiro; James Ingle; Charles Haskell; Kathy S Albain; Robert Livingston; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Progesterone receptors as a prognostic factor in Stage II breast cancer.

Authors:  G M Clark; W L McGuire; C A Hubay; O H Pearson; J S Marshall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1983-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  10 in total

1.  Image analysis of immunohistochemistry is superior to visual scoring as shown for patient outcome of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Annette Feuchtinger; Tabitha Stiehler; Uta Jütting; Goran Marjanovic; Birgit Luber; Rupert Langer; Axel Walch
Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.304

2.  Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells.

Authors:  Allison W Welsh; Christopher B Moeder; Sudha Kumar; Peter Gershkovich; Elaine T Alarid; Malini Harigopal; Bruce G Haffty; David L Rimm
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Spatially multiplexed RNA in situ hybridization to reveal tumor heterogeneity.

Authors:  Lena Voith von Voithenberg; Anna Fomitcheva Khartchenko; Deborah Huber; Peter Schraml; Govind V Kaigala
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.

Authors:  Min Yi; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Janice N Cormier; Thomas A Buchholz; Karl Bilimoria; Aysegul A Sahin; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Sheng Luo; Aman U Buzdar; Jaime R Crow; Henry M Kuerer; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  A novel quantitative immunohistochemistry method for precise protein measurements directly in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens: analytical performance measuring HER2.

Authors:  Kristian Jensen; Rikke Krusenstjerna-Hafstrøm; Jesper Lohse; Kenneth H Petersen; Helene Derand
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 7.842

6.  ER and HER2 expression are positively correlated in HER2 non-overexpressing breast cancer.

Authors:  Isabel Pinhel; Margaret Hills; Suzanne Drury; Janine Salter; Georges Sumo; Roger A'Hern; Judith M Bliss; Ivana Sestak; Jack Cuzick; Peter Barrett-Lee; Adrian Harris; Mitch Dowsett
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Quantitative comparison of immunohistochemical staining measured by digital image analysis versus pathologist visual scoring.

Authors:  Anthony E Rizzardi; Arthur T Johnson; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Stefan E Pambuccian; Jonathan Henriksen; Amy Pn Skubitz; Gregory J Metzger; Stephen C Schmechel
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.644

8.  Quantitative comparison and reproducibility of pathologist scoring and digital image analysis of estrogen receptor β2 immunohistochemistry in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Anthony E Rizzardi; Xiaotun Zhang; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Suzanne Kolb; Milan S Geybels; Yuet-Kin Leung; Jonathan C Henriksen; Shuk-Mei Ho; Julianna Kwak; Janet L Stanford; Stephen C Schmechel
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 2.644

9.  Tumor-associated macrophage, angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis markers predict prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Ilseon Hwang; Jeong Won Kim; Kris Ylaya; Eun Joo Chung; Haruhisa Kitano; Candice Perry; Jun Hanaoka; Junya Fukuoka; Joon-Yong Chung; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 5.531

10.  Breast Cancer Staging: Is TNM Ready to Evolve?

Authors:  Fernando Cadiz; Juan G Gormaz; Mauricio Burotto
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2017-08-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.